U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.

I find the timing of the New York Times report claiming that the 2012 Benghazi attack was part of an angry, spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim video dubious at best. It went on to say that the attack was not connected with al-Qaeda.

What is clear to me is the Times had an agenda to advance. That agenda was an attempt to clean up Hillary Clinton's soiled reputation before her 2016 presidential run.

I have a few unanswered questions. Why did the president, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton all claim initially that the attack was all because of an anti-Muslim video. I'm not buying the NYT story. Why didn't the Obama administration tell the truth? Why wasn't there any help given to these brave Americans. Why didn't the president take a more personal interest that night regarding the situation? Why did the president the next day fly to Las Vegas to campaign? Why didn't the president want to get to the bottom of what happened that night? Why wasn't there beefed up security at the consulate that night? Why hasn't there been retribution for this vicious attack? Does anyone really believe it was coincidence that the attack happened on the anniversary of 9/11? Why doesn't the New York Times want to get to the truth of all these questions?

Mike Hart

Kokomo

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Questions remain about Benghazi attack

I find the timing of the New York Times report claiming that the 2012 Benghazi attack was part of an angry, spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim video dubious at best. It went on to say that the